The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with blue to gold law enforcement training. I want to share another question I got from a student in New Orleans. I'm about to head back to the airport. But this is a question that is excellent because it does come up quite often. The question is, if officers have an arrest warrant, can they serve it at a third party's home? Not just the suspect's home or where they live?

And the answer is no. The reason is, is that this is called the steagle rule. What the US Supreme Court says is that the an arrest warrant gives you essentially automatic authority to search for that suspect that fugitive at their domicile, that is that level of intrusion is included with the arrest warrant. So when a judge signs off an arrest warrant, they are essentially also signing off on the ability to search for that person at their domicile. Because that is not highly intrusive. It makes sense that if you have an arrest warrant, well, where would they be? Well, either they're in public, which implicates no Fourth Amendment really issue. But if they're at their home, it makes sense that that's where they would be captured. But one other issue with that is if you are going to serve that arrest warrant at their home, you do have to articulate that you have reason to believe that they're presently home before you execute the search warrant—so valid arrest warrant, at their domicile. And at the time of execution, they are presently you have reason to believe they are presently inside the home. If those three things exist, you can serve the arrest warrant at the house in the same manner, as if you had a search warrant, which includes forced entry after knocking announce now, with when the person flees to a third party's home, or it happens to be a third party's home, their cousins, their friends, their girlfriend's house. Well, whether or not they have Fourth Amendment standing or a fourth amendment privacy interest in that home is actually a different question. Courts will look at does the person spends the night there? You know, they have a key there, and they have unfettered access to the residence. That's what's one issue. So you may or may not be violating the suspect's rights. But you are certainly violating the homeowners rights the third party; they have fourth amendment rights to keep police out of their home to serve these warrants for other people that happen to be in their home at the time. Does that make sense? So if the person is at their cousin's house, the cousins the cousin has a right to keep police out without a different search warrant, naming his or her house in the search warrant. And that's what's going on there. So again, keep that in mind. The officer shared a story where the officer did serve an arrest warrant at the cousin's house. And that is problematic. You're going to need usually either the cousins consent or somebody who has apparent authority over the home, which they didn't have in this case, or you don't have to go back to the magistrate and get a search warrant to look for the fugitive at the cousin's house, then you can serve the arrest warrant. I hope that makes sense. I Hope I'm moving the ball forward with these discussions, and it's giving you some good feedback. Keep the questions coming. And until next time, stay safe.

When it comes to legal training, we're the gold standard. Visit bluetogold.com or Call 888-579-7796 today to purchase the search and seizure Survival Guide, register for a class or learn how to bring our search and seizure training to your agency.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with blue to gold law enforcement training. I have another question from an officer from Arizona. And it's a great question. I want to share it with you and give you my feedback on it. And so the question is, Can officers still ask for consent to search a vehicle during a traffic stop? Without that being considered extending the traffic stop for an unrelated region reason, in violation of the Rodriguez decision?

And so the answer is, yes, officers can do it. It is not it does not violate Rodriguez. And here's why. So, first of all, as a little bit of a context, Rodriguez is that decision from 2015 that says that if officers overextend a stop for an unrelated reason, then that violates the Fourth Amendment and evidence to suppress? Well, that just makes sense. I mean, Rodriguez decision was really bad facts make bad law type of logic. The officer there extended the stop for seven minutes to run a canine without any reasonable suspicion, but yet the traffic stop was done. It was over. In fact, Rodriguez was let go. And then he was detained when he did not agree for the dock search. But that decision has not been read in a manner that says, any unrelated questioning absolutely no matter what violates the Fourth Amendment. Instead, what courts are really looking for is, are cops doing something? Are they you know, asking so many questions about an unrelated topic, that it measurably extends a stop, and it cannot be upheld under the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard. But courts fortunately, and I think this is the right answer, by the way, are not reading Rodriguez in a manner that says any question that does not directly relate to the stop is a violation in of itself. So instead, they're trying to find this balancing test, which is many cases are trying to find that proper balance. So for example, you know, if the officer approaches the car for, let's say, the stop was for speeding, and ask for license registration insurance? Do you have any weapons in the car? Do you have anything illegal in the car, you know, and so forth? Those questions are fine. They don't offend the Fourth Amendment because they do not measurably extend the stop. And moreover, many courts find that those type of questions are actually related to the safety issues of a traffic stop, it would be it would be very beneficial, for example, for an officer to know if somebody has a weapon or that they're transporting narcotics, that's a safety issue. And so some courts handle it that way. But even if they don't directly say that they the questioning still does not extend the stop. That is the same logic that applies to consent to search. Rodriguez is not violated if the occupants or the driver give consent to extend the stop for some other reason, for example, consent to search consent to ask questions that are unrelated to the traffic stop, that the defendant can surely give the officers consent to extend the stop. It's just when the officer does it on his or her own. And especially is very intrusive about it. You know, for example, if the stop is about a faulty blinker, right, and the officer is asking just several questions that have nothing to do with a faulty blinker, you know, or traffic-related issues, but it says it's going down this path of a drug investigation that takes you know, a minute or so that is going to offend the Fourth Amendment and the evidence is likely to be is going to be suppressed. So that is the answer. You know, in some states like Minnesota, and Oregon, the answer is a little different because those states do have a topic restriction on traffic stops. But that is not the general rule in the 48 other states. I hope this helps.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Good morning, guys. It's Anthony Bandiero, here with blue to gold law enforcement training, have another roadside chat. I'm in Memphis, Tennessee today, and I got a question from an officer actually, in Ohio, about whether or not an assigned parking spot at an apartment complex is curtilage?

And the answer is no, it's not because it doesn't qualify under the done factors. That's how I would. That's how I would decide this case. And so the reason behind this real quickly is that in order to be curtilage are four factors. One is how close is it to the home itself? Well, a parking spot at an apartment, typically they're not. They're detached from the actual boundary lines of the apartment. So that leads against it. Number two, is, are there any? Are there any fences or barriers around the area? We're talking about the actual curtilage itself, not just the whole property, you know, so for example, if the apartment has a fence all around it, and it's considered a gated apartment, that is certainly going to weigh in favor of curtilage, but not enough to tip the scales. The third factor is use. What is the area being used for now? It's the exclusive parking spot of the tenant. But it's not, you know, that's a factor that helps. But it's not the kind of use parking in of itself, except the type of use that we're really going after here with curtilage. We're looking for family or personal activities. So that weighs against it, ultimately. And then finally, is there any site screening, and that's going to be a really big one here because any John Q citizen who happens to be in the parking lot can see the vehicle. And there is there, though, that's going to reduce the expectation of privacy. So for those four reasons, I do not believe it's going to be curmudgeon. Also, there are no cases that I've found that was some that was fine that under those general circumstances, that is curtilage. So there's your answer. Keep the questions coming.

Until next time, stay safe.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

I'm Anthony Bandiero with Blue to Gold law enforcement training. I want to make a quick video on a question that was asked to me by two different officers in two different states very recently. And it's a great question. And so now I want to share the answer with you, folks. So the question is, is Ken police run a drug canine around a car in a parking lot?

The answer is yes. Because under those facts, the police did not conduct a Fourth Amendment search. And now here's why. A running a canine first of all, a drunk canine that canine picks up the scent of narcotics, narcotics are illegal to possess. Therefore, a suspect does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, in that, that sense that's emanating from their car, you know, that's gonna be, you know, during the free air sniff. So that's, that's the first part. The second part is that the dog is lawfully present. When cars are in parking lots, whether it's Wendy's Motel Six is lovestruck stops, and so forth. The suspect can be there, but so can police. Nothing prevents a police officer from being from looking into a car. Now, I wouldn't want to touch the car and manipulate anything, but right to be right to see. And so there because the officer can be outside the car, so Can his best friend, the canine, the canine can also be outside the car. And that is the epitome of a free air sniff requiring no legal justification. And so that is what's going on. Now, you do want to make sure that the dog is lawfully present. So, for example, we have a case called Jardins, where police brought Frankie, the drug-sniffing dog onto the curtilage of a suspect presumed or who was allegedly growing marijuana. Now he was growing marijuana, but at the time was allegedly because they got an anonymous tip. The police brought the dog onto the property while doing a knock and talk, and the dog alerted. The US Supreme Court found in that case that that that was a search under the Fourth Amendment because the police had no implied consent, essentially, to bring that dog onto curtilage. During a knock and talk that was something that most people would not implicitly allow police to do. And it makes sense. And so because the police were trespassing while they brought the dog because they brought the dog, they're trespassing because they brought the dog that therefore it was a search under the Fourth Amendment. But take that same scenario in the parking lot of Wendy's, right, or the motel is, you know, where cops are probably gonna deploy the dog more often. Police can be there just like the suspect can again, and also, you do not need the manager's permission to be on the property. Whether or not, please get it that's a totally different issue. But the suspect has no right to exclude police officers from this side from that parking lot. So it's irrelevant whether or not police got consent from the manager, right? That person even if there's no, even if the manager did not consent. Right. And the suspect brings that up in court. The problem with that is that the suspect has no legitimate privacy interest in that parking lot because there's no right to exclude anybody else...

How're you doing Law enforcement officers. It's Anthony Bandiero, here with Blue to Gold law enforcement training.

And today, I'm going to teach you the four elements that you need before you can do a warrantless vehicle search. The first element is probable cause that seems obvious. You need probable cause that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence. The second element is that the vehicle cannot be inside curtilage. Right, you must have lawful access to the vehicle. So that means that the vehicle mainly is on a public street or in a public parking lot. But if the vehicles inside a garage, underneath a carport, in the back yard, you likely do not have lawful access to that vehicle. And so, therefore, you're gonna need something else, for example, consent to be on the property by somebody with a parent or actual authority or some kind of exigency. So, for example, you believe that the vehicle is going to flee the jurisdiction, and so forth. So the third element is the vehicle has to be rarely mobile. What I like to teach my students is readily mobile means the vehicle either needs gas, tires, or a battery. And so if you see a vehicle broken down on the side of the road, and you develop probable cause to that there's evidence inside the car, can you search it? The answer is yes, if the vehicle, for example, has a flat tire, it's out of gas, or the battery went dead. And finally, the fourth element that you need is your search cannot exceed the probable cause that you have. And so this is very important because whenever you search a vehicle under the motor vehicle exception, you can only search. The scope of the search must be within the bounds of what a magistrate would allow you to search where the metric would allow you to search. So, for example, if you're looking for a stolen MacBook Pro, and you get you got a warrant from a judge, but the judge allows you to search for that computer in the eyeglass case? And the answer is no because it can't be contained in there. And so, the same principles apply when you're conducting a warrantless search or seizure. You don't have extra powers that the judge can give you in the first place. So those are the four elements again, probable cause lawful access, which essentially means the vehicle is not within the curtilage. It's rarely mobile, and your search does not exceed the scope of the probable cause that you have. I hope this helps. If you have a question for me, email me at [email protected]. If you want me to come out and teach you and your fellow officers advanced search and seizure.

Until next time, be safe

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hello, Law enforcement officers. It's Anthony Bandiero, here with Blue Gold law enforcement training. And today, I'm going to share with you the difference between open view and plain view. Open view is when you are in a non-protected area. And you see incriminating evidence. One of the reasons they call it open view is because, typically, you're on open fields. What is an open field?

Open fields are generally anywhere where you can see the sky, and you're not in curtilage. Right. So I like to say if you can look up and you can actually see the sky, you're on one or two areas, curtilage or an open field, if you can look up and you see a ceiling while you're in a protected area. And how much protection that area gets depends on where it is. So for example, a home is going to get way more protection than the lobby of Burger King. But that's beside the point. So open view is when you see incriminating evidence, or concept, you know, or, or contraband or evidence when you're not in a protected area. Plain view, on the other hand, is when you are inside a protected area and see the evidence or contraband. Now, let me just make one thing clear, it doesn't really matter what you call it in the report. Most officers I know are calling this plain view no matter where they are. And that's okay. But since I'm a legal instructor for police officers, I figured I would just make a quick video and share with you the legal distinction between those two terms. Now, let me give you an example of open view. Open view is when you're walking down a sidewalk, right, that would be considered constitutionally under the Fourth Amendment and open field because it's not curtilage. Tech, usually, and you're walking by, and you look inside a house window and you see a marijuana plant in the window? Well, you that's open view, you don't need any prior justification on why you're on that sidewalk because the constant, the Fourth Amendment does not apply. So you could be there at two o'clock in the morning, you could be nosy, it doesn't matter. But now a plain view example, your call to a domestic violence, you go into the home, and you look over and you see that same marijuana plant in the window. Now, you have just seen it on their plain view, because you're in a constitutionally protected area. And now you see the marijuana plant. The important distinction is that under plain view, you always have to justify why you're in that place to begin with. So assuming that you didn't see the marijuana plant as you're walking up to the house, you're gonna the report has to make clear why you have lawful authority to even be in the home, whether it's the emergency doctrine, consent by one of the occupants. And there are numerous other judicially recognized exceptions which are going to get you into that home. But the point is if you are not lawfully inside that home, then then you cannot have the Plainview exception apply. So for example, if you make an arrest inside of a home, and let's say the arrest is lawful, let's say you had you were in let's say if during that domestic violence, you were in the home and you decide to arrest the husband, for domestic violence, and now your partner sweeps the whole house, including the basement and upstairs for other suspects. But none of it none of the officers had a reasonable suspicion that anyone else was in the house that could pose a danger. And while upstairs, your partner sees a marijuana grow operation or drugs in plain view, that is unlawful because if the court finds, just like I assume for these facts that there was no reason to the protective sweep...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hello, Law enforcement officers. It's Anthony Bandiero, here with Blue to Gold law enforcement training. And today we're gonna ask a very simple question. Do you need to read Miranda in its entirety to someone who claims that they already know their rights?

The answer is yes. Even if you're, even if you're arresting a judge that's been on the bench for 40 years, and all he's done is criminal trials. And you arrest him for domestic violence. And you want to read him, Miranda. And as you're reading it, he says, hey, look, I don't need you to read me, Miranda. I know Miranda from the back of my hand. I can read you, Miranda, if you want me to, if you want me to. You can't say this is I find it funny because it's kind of ridiculous. You can't if you intend to interview him or her. You can't stop and say, Okay, I know you understand Miranda. You have to read Miranda, in its entirety. And the main reason here is that when you go to court, and you try to argue to the court that you got to a knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda, well, it's hard to prove that the that the person knew their rights and knew what they were waiving, without you telling them what they are waiving. Does that make sense? So if if you tell him you have the right to remain silent, and he knew you stop right there because they know their rights, and you are convinced that they do know the rights, let's say you've read this person 2020 times before and you've read a Miranda 20 times before, but then you never read them that they have the right to an attorney. And if they couldn't afford one, one would be provided. It's hard to go into court and say, well, he intelligently knowingly waived his right to counsel. Because he told me he knew all his rights. You see the point there. That's the courts, basically, in order to prevent this kind of back and forth, and I know he knew his rights because I dealt with him before. They have a blanket rule. You have to read Miranda in its entirety. So I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, email me at [email protected].

Until next time, be safe

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

How're you doing, Law enforcement officers? It's Anthony Bandiero here with Blue to Gold law enforcement training. And today, I'm gonna teach you C.R.E.W.

C.R.E.W is an acronym that I teach my students during the advanced search and seizure class to keep in mind whenever they are searching or seizing a protected area, true stands for consent, or a recognized exception or a warrant. And the point here is whenever you are searching; you're seizing the protected areas under the Fourth Amendment, which are persons, houses, places, you know, places, papers and effects and so forth. You need crew, you need either consent by a person who has actual or apparent authority over that item or place, or you need to recognize exception. So the motor vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement, you need exigent circumstances. So for example, imminent destruction of evidence to before entering a house to secure evidence, community caretaking and so forth. So you're you need to recognize exception. If you don't have consent or a recognized exception. There's only one thing left, and you need a search warrant. And that's why I want you to keep this in mind. So whenever you're searching or seizing in a protected area, ask yourself Do I have crew? Do I have consent from a person to if I don't have consent? Do I have a recognized exception, which is most searches or seizures are going to occur with a recognized exception. If you don't have if you can't think of a recognized exception, then you're going to need a warm. This kind of give me give you an example. Real quick to how crew plays out. So you're in a home investigating a domestic violence while your partner is talking to the victim. For example, you're looking around, and you see a meth pipe on the kitchen table. Now, is that a search under the Fourth Amendment? No, because you're lawfully present, and you're allowed to use your natural senses to look around if you're lawfully present. So that is not a search under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore you don't need crew. But now you go over to the kitchen table, and you seize that meth pipe. Do you now need crew? Yes, because once you seize the item that implicates the Fourth Amendment, so do you have consent? No, not in this case? Do you have a recognized exception? The answer is yes. It's the plain view seizure doctrine. So you're allowed if you're lawfully present, you may seize evidence that is readily apparent to be contraband or evidence. And of course, under these circumstances, you don't need a warm, so that's how you use crew. I hope it helps and if you have any other questions for me, please email me at info at Blue to gold calm. If you want to read, I believe the best search and seizure book written for cops. It's a search and seizure Survival Guide. It's available on Amazon or on my website Bluetogold.com.

Until next time, be safe

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hello law enforcement officers, it's Anthony Bandiero, here with blue to gold law enforcement training. And today we're going to ask whether or not police can insert an undercover officer or a confidential informant into the jail setting to speak to the suspect about the crime for which they have believed to have committed without Miranda. And the answer, generally speaking, is yes, police can do this. Why? Because the coercive atmosphere that the Supreme Court is trying to prevent without a person volunteer voluntarily and knowingly waiving their rights, the right to silence is not present under those conditions. Right. When we're in the police academy, we learned very early on in our young police academy career that in order for Miranda to apply, you need custody, plus interrogation by police officer. Well, it's interrogation by a known police officer. If you have somebody in jail, and they think they're talking to a friend, like the confidential informant, or they're talking to a fellow cellmate, the undercover officer that has no coercive atmosphere there, because they think they're talking to somebody on their level, they're not talking to a police officer looking to build evidence against him. So, therefore, Miranda doesn't apply. There are two caveat that you have to keep in mind when it will apply. The first one is under the Fifth Amendment if they have invoked their right to counsel, if while you're arresting the person, you read a Miranda, and they say, You know what I want my lawyer, you can't get around this by putting a confidential informant in the cell with them. They have that once they say they, they want their lawyer, they're going to get their lawyer and the only way around that is if they initiate conversation with you about their crime. So them asking, Hey, I want my attorney and then later asking, Hey, how long am I going to spend in jail? Or what is my bail? That's not going to work that has nothing to do with the general crime for which they are accused of. But if they say, Hey, you know what, I do want to talk to you about the sexual assault, then they've opened up conversation again, and you can give them a new Miranda, right, fresh Miranda, and then get a waiver, preferably in writing. So that's, that's one caveat where this would not apply. The other one is under the Sixth Amendment. Once they have an attorney appointed to them, you can't talk to him about the climate issue. You can't talk about the crime that they've been charged with, or any related, possibly another crime that has the same Nexus as the one that they are accused of. So for example, if they are arrested for an armed robbery where a death occurred, but they have not been charged with the felony murder, you cannot obviously talk to them about the felony murder, even if has nothing to do with the actual armed robbery. That whole that whole Nexus that whole, you know, the facts, the crime that they are accused of. That's all off limits, that doesn't apply to any unrelated, uncharged crime for which a lawyer has not been appointed. So just think about that. I hope this helps Miranda, you know, I find that a lot of officers do have the basics down. But when it comes to some of these winding roads of different issues, Miranda can be actually quite complicated...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

How're you doin? Law enforcement officers? It's Anthony Bandiero, here with Blue to Gold law enforcement training. And today we're going to ask whether or not you can obtain consent to search from somebody who has invoked their right to silence on the Miranda?

And the answer is yes, you can. And the reason is because Miranda protects testimony, right? It doesn't protect citizens or a suspect from using physical evidence against them. So the point here is that Miranda does not protect the act of giving consent to search because that consent the search has to do with physical evidence and not testimony. So very simple question, even a simpler answer. I hope this helps. Now, just also realize that if somebody has invoked the right to silence, and then you ask for consent to search, that doesn't give you a right that's not going to open the door for other questioning, right? That doesn't mean that if they gave you consent to search that they have now overturn their previous invocation. Other rules apply to that, and I will also cover those videos, but I hope this helps. If you have any questions for me email me at info at Blue to gold calm. Also, if you're interested in a search and seizures father guide, you can purchase it on Amazon or my website bluetogold.com

Until next time, be safe.

Have another question? Click here: https://www.bluetogold.com/show